Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge, a book written by Georg G. Iggers, explores the transformation of modern trends throughout history using the influence of social science. Iggers combines his studies of German and American customs defined by social history to bring us in-depth highlights of pertinent information. Iggers opens the book by talking about a revolutionary way that the Western world was taught about history. Throughout the book he ascertains the changes that take place throughout historiography and the nature of history itself. He also examines prior historical notions and the way that historiography was altered after World War II.
Keith Jenkins and Richard Evans are the two historians that will be used in relation to this debate. Trachtenberg believes that history should be ultimately obtainable however, he is worried that the way in which society is heading that it will soon become an obsolete ideology. His believes that history's ultimate goal is to discover the truth. Trachtenberg believes that you should "put your political beliefs aside and frame questions in such a way that the answers turned on what the evidence showed." He realizes that this may be a slightly naïve idea however he still stands by this belief even when others such as Keith Jenkins have totally given up on objectivity.
How has the evolutionary past of humans influenced the contemporary culture? Reading R. Crumb’s The Book of Genesis (Illustrated) opens doorways for studying anthropology because it looks into the history and beginning of humankind. Studying the humanities relates to the study of anthropology because the graphic novel The Book of Genesis depicts ancient human culture. Crumb’s 2009 graphic novel helps better understand today’s society and comprehend how humans live today. The study of man and civilization connects with other subjects of education because it involves the reasoning for life today.
Throughout the course of this essay, references will be made to various theorists and scholars to support assertions. When considering the value of historical analysis, one must first understand what historical analysis is. Jupp (2006: 135-137) states that historical analysis is a method of “disciplined and systematic analysis” in order to examine the past. Jupp elucidates to explain that historical analysis can be utilised to challenge prevailing assumptions and social theories because it records the history of both dominant powers and marginalised groups, enabling new interpretation and the development of new theories. When studying oppressed and minority groups, historical analysis is valuable in aiding the development of alternative models of social change.
The True historian will look beyond their opinions and cultural restrictions by collecting information from both sides and then determining the best course of action. During the twentieth century, there was a shift in idea on how historians should analyze and study history. Modern day historians study the past in hopes of better understanding the present. One technique historians use to narrow down specific events is by looking for tuning points or eras of major change that lead to a greater impact. One cataclysmic event that has recently become under great debate
They use reasoning to do their job. In order to answer this question I am making the assumption that it states that history solely concentrates on unraveling the past, while Human Sciences exclusively seeks to change the future, but I tend to prove that is not the case. The historian's task is to shed light on the what, why, and how of the past, based on inferences from the evidence of the present. The evidence will have to come from many sources such as information collected from stories passed from person to person, archeological findings, primary sources, recording on tape, paper or stone, scientific analysis of objects. Historical data do not speak for themselves; the archives are incomplete, unclear, contradictory, and very confusing.
This paper will analyze the texts of John Lewis Gaddis, Nietzsche and the Birth of Tragedy, Modernity and Historical Vision, Living in Modernity, and Hermeneutics. Finally, the paper will argue that history is not largely objective, and is fundamentally shaped through the historian’s subjectivity. John Lewis Gaddis, in his book, The Landscape of History, generates a strong argument for the historical method by bringing together the multiple standpoints in viewing history and the sciences. The issue of objective truth in history is addressed throughout Gaddis’s work. In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid.
However in history, which we want to focus on, we have orthodox, revisionist, post-revisionist and many more. One may ask himself why there are so many different historians if there was but only ONE true accurate history. This is because history is full of “gaps” which the historians TRY to fill with their ow... ... middle of paper ... ...ut does not give an explanation. On the other hand I define law as a concept that shows the direction of movement of a variable and gives a reliable explanation for the movement. Additionally human scientist may confuse a correlation with a casual connection.
Historians, in their selective analysis of the past on the basis of surviving historical records and evidence, draw conclusions, which must necessarily be subject to their own individual interpretations – interpretations that are in turn subject to the historians’ own individual ideologies. The fact that history is constantly being rewritten is testimony to the impossibility of attaining “true” objectivity. On the other hand, “true” subjectivity would constitute a threat to history itself as a discipline – the logical outcome of this would be to grant every historian his or her own perspective, no matter how out of synch with the “truth” it might be. The moral entanglement resulting from such an approach is not difficult to imagine. This essay will attempt to examine (some) historian’s views on objectivity, within these two extremes, but the limited word count necessitates the exclusion of others (White, Collingwood).
Also, in order to gain a sound knowledge of the past, we have to understand the political, social and cultural aspects of the times we are studying. In What is History, Alan Bullock believes that history is an attempt to explain the sequence and connections of events. He believes that "History is to explain why...it is not to explain why they had to follow, but why they did in fact follow." It is believed by Bullock that history is taken apart and is put together by an historian, so that it may yield new evidence, that will teach us a lesson from the past in order to become more aware of the future. This connective account helps us "get inside the skin of this man or group of men."